Open Stack

On 7/28/16, 12:30 PM, "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum at gmail.com> wrote:

>Steven,
>
>Please see response from Doug:
>http://markmail.org/message/yp7fpojnzufb5jki

Dims,

Are you implying Doug's position represents that of the TC?

I have read Doug's position, and it completely ignores Zane's assessment
of the problem at hand.

Clarity has not been reached.  I could restate the problem for you if you
like.

>
>If anyone disagrees with that position, please file a resolution.
>
>Let's stop this thread now please.


Asking for a thread to be stopped before a resolution is reached is not
the right thing.

Regards
-steve

>
>Thanks,
>Dims
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
>wrote:
>> Dims,
>>
>> I personally think its the responsibility of the TC to resolve this
>> problem via a resolution.  That’s why we elected you folks :)
>>
>> Regards
>> -steve
>>
>>
>> On 7/28/16, 11:09 AM, "Davanum Srinivas" <davanum at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Zane, Steve,
>>>
>>>I'd say go for it! Can you please write up a proposal for the TC to
>>>consider? 
>>>(https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/governance)
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>-- Dims
>>>
>>>On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>> Jay,
>>>>
>>>> I'll be frank.  I have been receiving numerous complaints which mirror
>>>> Zane's full second understanding of what it means to be an OpenStack
>>>>big
>>>> tent project.  These are not just Kolla developers.  These are people
>>>>from
>>>> all over the community.  They want something done about it.  I agree
>>>>with
>>>> Zane if clarity is provided by the TC via a resolution, the problem
>>>>would
>>>> disappear.  We are all adults and can live by the rules, even if we
>>>> disagree with them.  This contract is the agreement under which
>>>> democracies are created, and one of the most appealing properties of
>>>> OpenStack.
>>>>
>>>> In this case there is no policy and one is obviously necessary to
>>>>avoid
>>>> these scenarios in the future.
>>>>
>>>> The TC has four options as I see it:
>>>> 1) do nothing
>>>> 2) write a resolution mirroring Zane's first analysis
>>>> 3) write a resolution mirroring Zane's second analysis
>>>> 4) write a different resolution that is a compromise of the first
>>>>analysis
>>>> and second analysis
>>>>
>>>> I don't wish Mirantis to state anything.  Vladimir did that (thanks
>>>> Vladimir!).
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> -steve
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/28/16, 10:30 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't see what is unclear about any of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>What exactly is it that you wish Mirantis to state?
>>>>>
>>>>>Zane says there needs to be some guidance from the TC "about what it
>>>>>means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent".
>>>>>
>>>>>But the fuel-ccp repos aren't listed in the governance repo, for
>>>>>reasons
>>>>>that were clearly stated by Mirantis engineers. They want to innovate
>>>>>in
>>>>>this area without all the politics that this thread exposes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Mirantis engineers have clearly laid out the technical reasons that
>>>>>Kolla doesn't fit the needs that Fuel has of these image definitions
>>>>>and
>>>>>orchestration tooling.
>>>>>
>>>>>The repos *aren't in the OpenStack tent* so how precisely would TC
>>>>>guidance about what it means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack
>>>>>tent
>>>>>be useful here?
>>>>>
>>>>>-jay
>>>>>
>>>>>On 07/28/2016 01:04 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>>>>> Jay,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That resolution doesn't clarify Zane's argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> -steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/28/16, 9:54 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The TC has given guidance on this already:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://governance.openstack.org/resolutions/20160119-stackforge-reti
>>>>>>>re
>>>>>>>me
>>>>>>>nt
>>>>>>> .html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "In order to simplify software development lifecycle transitions of
>>>>>>> Unofficial and Official OpenStack projects, all projects developed
>>>>>>> within the OpenStack project infrastructure will be permitted to
>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>> “openstack/” namespace. The use of the term “Stackforge” to
>>>>>>>describe
>>>>>>> unofficial projects should be considered deprecated."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Fuel CCP repos are projects that are not official OpenStack
>>>>>>>projects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are in the openstack/ git namespace because they use the
>>>>>>>common
>>>>>>> infrastructure and there isn't any formal plan to have the repos
>>>>>>>join
>>>>>>> the "official OpenStack projects" (i.e. the ones listed in the
>>>>>>> projects.yaml file in the openstack/governance repository).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could they be proposed in the future as official OpenStack
>>>>>>>projects?
>>>>>>> Maybe. Not sure, and I don't believe it's necessary to decide ahead
>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please stop using a marketing press release as some indication of
>>>>>>>what
>>>>>>> the "intent" is for these repos or even that there *is* any intent
>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>> this point. It's really early on and these repos are intended as a
>>>>>>>place
>>>>>>> to experiment and innovate. I don't see why there is so much anger
>>>>>>>about
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> -jay
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/28/2016 12:33 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doug,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Zane's analysis is correct.  I agree with Zane's assessment that
>>>>>>>>TC
>>>>>>>> clarification can solve this situation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> -steve
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/28/16, 9:15 AM, "Zane Bitter" <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 28/07/16 08:48, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Fuel-ccp repositories are public, everyone is welcome to
>>>>>>>>>>participate.
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> don¹t see where we violate ³4 opens². These repos are now
>>>>>>>>>> experimental.
>>>>>>>>>> At the moment the team is working on building CI pipeline and
>>>>>>>>>> developing
>>>>>>>>>> functional tests that are to be run as a part of CI process.
>>>>>>>>>>These
>>>>>>>>>> repos
>>>>>>>>>> are not to be a part of Fuel Newton release. From time to time
>>>>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>>>>>add
>>>>>>>>>> and retire git repos and it is a part of development process.
>>>>>>>>>>Not
>>>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>>> these repos are to become a part of Big tent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that there are two different interpretations of
>>>>>>>>>what
>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>> means for a repo to be part of the OpenStack tent, and that these
>>>>>>>>> differing interpretations are at the root of the arguments in
>>>>>>>>>this
>>>>>>>>> thread.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The first interpretation is that repos listed as belonging to a
>>>>>>>>>team
>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>> the governance repo are part of a deliverable that is released
>>>>>>>>>each
>>>>>>>>> development cycle, and that the same team may also control other
>>>>>>>>>repos
>>>>>>>>> that are not deliverables and hence not part of OpenStack. It's
>>>>>>>>>easy
>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>> see how people could have developed this interpretation in good
>>>>>>>>>faith.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The second interpretation is that the TC blesses a team; that the
>>>>>>>>>only
>>>>>>>>> criterion for receiving this blessing is for the project to be
>>>>>>>>>"one
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>> us", which in practice effectively means following the Four
>>>>>>>>>Opens;
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>> that all repos which the team intends to operate in this manner,
>>>>>>>>> subject
>>>>>>>>> to TC oversight, should be listed in the governance repo. It's
>>>>>>>>>also
>>>>>>>>> easy
>>>>>>>>> to see how people could have developed this interpretation in
>>>>>>>>>good
>>>>>>>>> faith. (In fact, I was following the big tent discussions very
>>>>>>>>>closely
>>>>>>>>> at the time and this was always my understanding of what it
>>>>>>>>>meant.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only additional thing needed to explain this thread is the
>>>>>>>>> (incorrect) assumption on behalf of all participants that
>>>>>>>>>everyone
>>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>> the same interpretation :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assuming everyone holds the first interpretation, the current
>>>>>>>>> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks completely logical and the
>>>>>>>>> complaints about it look like sour grapes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assuming everyone holds the second interpretation, the current
>>>>>>>>> designation of the fuel-ccp repo looks like an attempt to avoid
>>>>>>>>>TC
>>>>>>>>> oversight in order to violate the Four Opens while using the name
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>>> official project (and issuing press releases identifying it as
>>>>>>>>>part
>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>> said official project), and the complaints look like a logical
>>>>>>>>>attempt
>>>>>>>>> to defend OpenStack from at least the appearance of openwashing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe this entire controversy will evaporate if the TC can
>>>>>>>>>clarify
>>>>>>>>> what it means for a repository to be listed in the governance
>>>>>>>>>repo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Zane.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>__________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>__
>>>>>>>>>__
>>>>>>>>>__
>>>>>>>>> __
>>>>>>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>___________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>__
>>>>>>>>__
>>>>>>>>__
>>>>>>>> _
>>>>>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>____________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>__
>>>>>>>__
>>>>>>>__
>>>>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>>OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_____________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>__
>>>>>>__
>>>>>>_
>>>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>>>OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>__
>>>>>__
>>>>>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>>>Unsubscribe:
>>>>>OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>__
>>>>_
>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>>OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>>>
>>>________________________________________________________________________
>>>__
>>>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>Unsubscribe: 
>>>OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> 
>>_________________________________________________________________________
>>_
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: 
>>OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>-- 
>Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev